The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11, 2010, 12:29 PM   #226
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,689
But the slippery slope runs both ways. We've seen state start with restrictive laws and then when the blood didn't flow on the streets, the laws and rules become less restrictive.

If in Chicago or DC, the legal owners who go through the process are not shown to be crazed loonies, then will there be pressure to lighten up?

It has happened in more gun friendly environs.

Would it happen here?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 12:51 PM   #227
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
NYT seems upset Chicago passed a gun law that could easily be overturned and set precedent that they (gun control advocates) wouldn't like.

I don't see the powers that be in Chicago or NYC loosening up gun control laws no matter the actual results. Bloomberg and Daley really do hate guns or the idea of citizens/subjects with guns. Only the courts will remove gun laws in Chicago and NYC.
mack59 is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 01:00 PM   #228
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,789
I don't see any mixed messages in that editorial at all. It's blatantly anti-gun from the first word to the last.

Granny doesn't need a gun. Call the police. One gun per household is "sensible". Let the police control it.

The message could not be clearer.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 01:02 PM   #229
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
For decades, gun control advocates had the advantage of incrementally building on existing laws. The relative advantage in the courts shifted to us with Heller and McDonald. The question used to be, if A is not too much, why not B, C or D; now the question will be, if Z is too much, what justifies Y, X, or W?

The only way we could quickly lose our advantage would be if gun controllers retreated far enough to establish a solid foundation for building new case law. Luckily, the emotions of the gun control crowd won't let them back down in that way.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 11, 2010, 01:09 PM   #230
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,689
The mixed message is that suggesting the stores, etc. in Chicago itself is opening yourself to a viral attack and creeping gun-ism.

They could have suggested absolute disobedience. Imagine the same in NYC. There's only one range in Manhattan. With a similar law, there's enough interest that folks would go through the process and then might force a loosening. Or you can just be a pessimist and not try to push this a little farther, bit by bit.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 13, 2010, 03:02 PM   #231
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,689
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/us...ra.html?ref=us

On the NRA's effectiveness and agenda after McDonald. Points to note, that both Dems and GOP are responsive to them. Look at the Harry Reid point on health insurance. Note how the antigun folks are just stewing. Also, the Times has to use the GOA to criticize the NRA - as if the Times would be happier if the GOA was the big dog.

Thus, the doom and gloom folks might read this.

Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 13, 2010, 03:46 PM   #232
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
From the NYT article:
Quote:
Ms. McCarthy said the group drew its power from its money — it has donated more than $17.5 million to federal candidates, mostly Republicans, since 1989, and spent millions more in lobbying — and the fear of political retribution.
That's only about $1.75M per year. In today's politics, while that's not something to sneeze at, I'm guessing there's bigger donors to politicians than the NRA on all sorts of issues. It's the votes that the politicians really worry about. Thus, the fear of political retribution is probably a bigger factor than the money. Keep in mind, if we have 4 million NRA members, how many of their wives, voting age children, friends, etc. who are not NRA members, vote in a similar fashion as the NRA members do? That is a significant voting block for pro gun rights issues.

The democrats finally realized this and it was spelled out by Howard Dean when he said the democrats can't just walk away from the guys who follow Nascar and sport NRA bumper stickers on their trucks. Those weren't his exact words, but close enough to make the point. They ran more pro gun rights candidates in red districts and won, giving them control of congress. That meant a defeat on many gun rights issues for the gun control and anti gun politicians in Washington, however. They don't like this situation very well, but it's easier to blame an agressive NRA and its money than their own party. Even President Obama understands the set up. He basically said that a new assault weapons ban was not politically in the cards at this time and told AG Eric Holder to back off on that issue.

I too liked how they used the GOA as a brickbat against the NRA. I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend at times.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old July 13, 2010, 03:53 PM   #233
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
The power of the NRA isn't so much it's money as it is the unified voting block. They can't do their mischief if they can't stay in office. I, for one would like to see a lot more gridlock in Washington. If they all just went home for a year or so, we could save trillions.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 14, 2010, 12:09 PM   #234
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
That's only about $1.75M per year. In today's politics, while that's not something to sneeze at, I'm guessing there's bigger donors to politicians than the NRA on all sorts of issues.
Actually, that's 20 1/2 years, so it's only $860,000 per year. Frankly, in todays world of Washington, that IS something to sneeze at. $860k is a pittance in DC. The power of the NRA is clearly not due to spending.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 14, 2010, 04:38 PM   #235
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,043
Peetzakilla:

Quote:
Actually, that's 20 1/2 years, so it's only $860,000 per year. Frankly, in todays world of Washington, that IS something to sneeze at. $860k is a pittance in DC. The power of the NRA is clearly not due to spending.
Oops. Brain cramp disorder. I must have been thinking about 99 when I did my math. And I'm an engineer on top of it. Boy, is my face red.

Yes, $860K is a pittance in comparison to the money spent in Washington by certain groups. It's the voting block the NRA represents that scares the undies off of the anti gun and pro-gun-control politicians. We should start calling them "public servants" again to help them come to grips with the fact that they are supposed to "serve" the public. They refer to themselves as "lawmakers" as this gives them a higher position on society since they "make" laws which control the rest of us, or at least attempt to control us.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old August 11, 2010, 09:35 PM   #236
Some_Dude
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2010
Posts: 13
Hello everyone, it's been awhile. In case you forgot I'm the "hand wringing federalist" who was warning of the dangers of incorporating the 2A. Turns out I'm not alone.

See this video at youtube.com "SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution".

Turns out some intellectual heavyweights (Dr. Kevin Gutzman, and Dr Tom Woods) are making the same arguments I was making, and they do it so much better than I was. Hate to post and run, but I am late for work.

Later,
Some_Dude
Some_Dude is offline  
Old August 12, 2010, 08:53 AM   #237
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,680
Quote:
Turns out some intellectual heavyweights (Dr. Kevin Gutzman, and Dr Tom Woods) are making the same arguments I was making, and they do it so much better than I was.
Putting aside the issue of how intellectual the two gentlemen who you feel share your opinion are, why don't you start a new thread for this if you want to actually have this discussion.

Your original thread on that topic was closed after you stopped responding by the second page and it wandered off down the old familiar path of whether the 14th Amendment was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states - which by the way, you never once acknowledged the question of how the 14th Amendment modified the traditional understanding of the relationship between the states and federal government - since that is invariably where any derivative of the argument you are making is going to go; maybe you should think about that and read some of those discussions here first?

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; August 12, 2010 at 09:04 AM. Reason: Edited not to derail thread with alternative Constitutional theory debate
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 12, 2010, 12:04 PM   #238
Some_Dude
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2010
Posts: 13
B. Roberts...
Sorry for 'posting on the wrong thread'. The heading is The MacDonald Decision. In light of what the case has stirred up I thought this would be a good thread to chime in on. I was in a hurry last night, and in the future I will start a new thread, as opposed to jumping in on one. As for the question you posed, I will work on it and get back here as soon as I can.

Later,
Some_Dude
Some_Dude is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09946 seconds with 7 queries